The minimum wage hasn't kept up with other things (it feels to me that it should be $15-$25) and the overall trend of inequality is undeniable (the very top, both in terms of wealth and income, have done much better than the median person, who in turn has done much better than those near the bottom) but comparing minimum wage to bonus is highly misleading, as Wall Street comp has moved increasingly to a bonus-heavy structure, which means bonuses have grown much faster than salaries. And this is just an incredibly misleading way to frame this:

> But those paydays have been skyrocketing for decades. Since 1985, Wall Street traders' bonuses have grown 1,217% - and that's just part of their overall pay, which was more than $406,000 on average in 2019, according to data from DiNapoli's office.

There's insinuation here that bonuses have grown 1,217% and since that's just part of the pay, Wall Street employees did even better than what's implied by the growth rate But that's just bad math - the salary had to also grow by the same rate in order for the overall pay to have the same growth rate. I don't have this data but they probably do and it's unlikely that they would've cherry-picked the bonus data if the salaries show the same trend.

Also, given the increase in automation and outsourcing of non-critical functions to less expensive areas (even moving back office functions to New Jersey would contribute to the trend), it's likely that there are fewer low-paying jobs on Wall Street as compared to the past. For instance, if you look at the source data linked to in the article:

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/press/pdf/wall-street-bonu...

The total amount grew by less than the amount per person from 1985 to 2011 (despite Wall Street being a much bigger part of the economy that employs far more people) and this means the sample in 2011 is likely biased towards a more elite subset of finance professionals.